发展以人为本,以人口为基础的“家庭时间”测量:老年患者和无薪照顾者的观点

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Nina R. Sperber , Abigail Shapiro , Nathan A. Boucher , Kasey P. Decosimo , Megan Shepherd-Banigan , Chelsea Whitfield , Susan N. Hastings , Courtney H. Van Houtven
{"title":"发展以人为本,以人口为基础的“家庭时间”测量:老年患者和无薪照顾者的观点","authors":"Nina R. Sperber ,&nbsp;Abigail Shapiro ,&nbsp;Nathan A. Boucher ,&nbsp;Kasey P. Decosimo ,&nbsp;Megan Shepherd-Banigan ,&nbsp;Chelsea Whitfield ,&nbsp;Susan N. Hastings ,&nbsp;Courtney H. Van Houtven","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measuring “home time,” number of days not in facility-based care, with medical claims is a promising approach to assess person-centered outcomes on a population level. Generally, spending more time at home matches long-term care preferences and improves quality of life<span>. However, existing “home time” measures have not incorporated key stakeholder perspectives. We sought to understand how patients and family caregivers<span> value time spent in diverse facility-based health care settings (Emergency Department, Nursing Home, Post-Acute Care/Skilled Nursing, Inpatient Hospital) to help determine whether various settings have different effects on quality of life and thus merit different weighting in a “home time” measure. We conducted three focus groups among patients and family caregivers within the U.S. Veterans Health Care System. We identified themes pertaining to patients’ quality of life in each of the four facility-based care settings. Discussions about both emergency department and post-acute/skilled nursing care reflected loss of personal control, counterbalanced by temporary stay. Inpatient hospital care evoked discussion about greater loss of personal control due to the intensity of care. Nursing homes ultimately signified decline. These findings illuminate differences in quality of life across health-care settings and help justify the need for different weights in a measure of “home time.”</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"9 4","pages":"Article 100591"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing a person-centered, population based measure of “home time”: Perspectives of older patients and unpaid caregivers\",\"authors\":\"Nina R. Sperber ,&nbsp;Abigail Shapiro ,&nbsp;Nathan A. Boucher ,&nbsp;Kasey P. Decosimo ,&nbsp;Megan Shepherd-Banigan ,&nbsp;Chelsea Whitfield ,&nbsp;Susan N. Hastings ,&nbsp;Courtney H. Van Houtven\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Measuring “home time,” number of days not in facility-based care, with medical claims is a promising approach to assess person-centered outcomes on a population level. Generally, spending more time at home matches long-term care preferences and improves quality of life<span>. However, existing “home time” measures have not incorporated key stakeholder perspectives. We sought to understand how patients and family caregivers<span> value time spent in diverse facility-based health care settings (Emergency Department, Nursing Home, Post-Acute Care/Skilled Nursing, Inpatient Hospital) to help determine whether various settings have different effects on quality of life and thus merit different weighting in a “home time” measure. We conducted three focus groups among patients and family caregivers within the U.S. Veterans Health Care System. We identified themes pertaining to patients’ quality of life in each of the four facility-based care settings. Discussions about both emergency department and post-acute/skilled nursing care reflected loss of personal control, counterbalanced by temporary stay. Inpatient hospital care evoked discussion about greater loss of personal control due to the intensity of care. Nursing homes ultimately signified decline. These findings illuminate differences in quality of life across health-care settings and help justify the need for different weights in a measure of “home time.”</span></span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076421000749\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076421000749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

用医疗索赔来衡量“在家时间”,即不在医疗机构接受护理的天数,是在人口水平上评估以人为本的结果的一种很有前途的方法。一般来说,花更多的时间在家里符合长期护理的偏好,并提高生活质量。然而,现有的“在家时间”措施并没有纳入关键利益相关者的观点。我们试图了解患者和家庭照顾者如何重视在不同设施的医疗保健环境(急诊科、养老院、急性后护理/熟练护理、住院医院)中度过的时间,以帮助确定不同的环境是否对生活质量有不同的影响,从而在“家庭时间”测量中获得不同的权重。我们在美国退伍军人医疗保健系统的病人和家庭照顾者中进行了三个焦点小组。我们确定了四种基于设施的护理环境中与患者生活质量相关的主题。关于急诊科和急性后/熟练护理的讨论反映了个人控制的丧失,与临时住院相抵消。住院病人的医院护理引起了关于由于护理强度而更大程度上失去个人控制的讨论。养老院最终标志着衰落。这些发现阐明了不同医疗机构生活质量的差异,并有助于证明在衡量“在家时间”时不同权重的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing a person-centered, population based measure of “home time”: Perspectives of older patients and unpaid caregivers

Measuring “home time,” number of days not in facility-based care, with medical claims is a promising approach to assess person-centered outcomes on a population level. Generally, spending more time at home matches long-term care preferences and improves quality of life. However, existing “home time” measures have not incorporated key stakeholder perspectives. We sought to understand how patients and family caregivers value time spent in diverse facility-based health care settings (Emergency Department, Nursing Home, Post-Acute Care/Skilled Nursing, Inpatient Hospital) to help determine whether various settings have different effects on quality of life and thus merit different weighting in a “home time” measure. We conducted three focus groups among patients and family caregivers within the U.S. Veterans Health Care System. We identified themes pertaining to patients’ quality of life in each of the four facility-based care settings. Discussions about both emergency department and post-acute/skilled nursing care reflected loss of personal control, counterbalanced by temporary stay. Inpatient hospital care evoked discussion about greater loss of personal control due to the intensity of care. Nursing homes ultimately signified decline. These findings illuminate differences in quality of life across health-care settings and help justify the need for different weights in a measure of “home time.”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信